however all the above are immaterial by comparison to the atitude of the drivers – the blocking and defensive tactics are apalling and criminal to any racer – someone may be faster than you to begin with – that doesn’t mean they will be at the end of the race and if overtaking was ‘normal’ clever drivers would see that – ce la vie

The improbability of brake failure these days calls for this:
a) the cars have virtually no traction to slow/stop if the cars go off in a straight line.
b) the ability for a spun car/s to re-enter the GP will cut down on annoying & unnecessary ‘safety car’ incidents.
c) no gravel will be available to be brought onto the circuit after a mistake.
d) drivers may try a bit harder knowing they can almost definitely re-enter the race/practice/qualifying after an off, instead of rarely being able to due to gravel traps.
e) a ten or fifteen feet wide strip of (real) grass between the circuit & the run-off area will prevent any possible cheating of using the added asphalt as the circuit.

Perhaps you have seen this.

In my slow, slow country, we did not get televised GP’s till very late 79. (So,alas, I can not comment on any previous to this time). Most of the races at late ’79 showed AJ & GV dicing hard. Extremely entertaining. And wonderful circuits.

But in all the GP’s till now – that Spanish one was the be all & end all of exactly what you speak of: 5 cars all within one and a half seconds, very little passing but awe-inspiring & truly astonishing racing.

No processions that day!!

I did what you said, I sent a week ago a copy of that Gordon Kirby’s blog to FIA’s Richard Woods email without any response…

I think the solution could be imagined just reviewing the last Fernando Alonso’s Malaysia race, where he drove without clutch, shifting down every corner into neutral and then putting the selected gear by pressing throttle (and a big slide), no engine braking and brake balance all to the rears.

It produced a superhuman performance from a great driver, made him make mistakes while trying to pass, an engine blowing, and a handful of incredible fast laps.

What we need is a car very complex to drive, that can make the driver a real imput, that provokes mistakes, engine failures, et all.

We need manual gearboxes, steel brakes and tyres that need a high slip angle to make high cornering forces.

Anyway, I love F1 since mid-seventies, even if sometimes the racing is not as all of us want to see I will follow our sport until I die.

PS Nigel, thank you.

In 1993 the entire CART series was geared to Nigel Mansell…everyone, including his team mate, went to extraordinary lengths to help him in every way possible. It was all PR…CART saw a chance at international exposure and took it. Mansell took full advantage, and drove brilliantly. In 1994, when Mansell was not the center of attention things were quite a bit different.

Michael Andretti was a victim of his failure to commit totally to Formula One, and of neglect on the part of McLaren (he got very little testing time). It was a mess all the way around.

The point is, it has worked both ways- F1 drivers have been successes and failures (Nelson Piquet comes to mind) in USAC/CART, and USAC/CART drivers have been successes and failures in F1.

Coincidently, 1991 Indy Car Champ, Michael Andretti, came to drive F1 for McLaren & teamated Ayrton Senna in 1993. Andretti made a fool of himself constantly that year in F1, and with tail between his legs cried his way back to the comfort of the USA.

I guess my point is: To drive Indy Cars takes skill but that skill rarely gets a seat in the pinnacle Formula One.

This Parade of Noisy Cars which today is supposed to be the pinacle of motor racing technology is risible. Is it too much to beg for a revolution from the only ones who can effect a meaningful change — the fans? Motor racing will die a slow death absent the paying/viewing customer. Someone with organizational expertise needs to emerge from the pack and create a large body of “clients”, aka the viewer. Tell the only people who matter that we are friggin’ sick and tired of all this bull excrement and will no longer watch the Parade of Noisy Cars NOR buy the products advertised! That’ll get someone’s attention. Follow the money said a wise man.

Regards, Jim

PS BSB on ITV4 tonight 19:30

But, personally, this is a sign of how drab this once pinnacle sport is at present.

The distant past & the present: Decades ago, when the cars were gorgeous & simple and wingless, produced only sometimes close racing. This is curious that it wasn’t always close. Until one looks at the practice times. Very often grid times were half to one second between just two cars, regardless of where they were on the grid. Presently, one second often covers the first ten or so on the grids!! SO WHY DOES THE RACING NOT PORTRAY THIS CLOSENESS?

Answer – the effectiveness of the wings.

My solution is three parts: replace the wings with ‘fake wings’ – objects of similar size & weight to replace existing wings but having NO aerodynamic effect at all. This would satisfy the sponsors. And this would eliminate the dreaded ‘one second’ barrier that no-one, repeat, no-one, can break.

Second part: ‘Mables’ reduce the effectiveness of the fabulous move known as the ‘dive up the inside under brakes’, because of reduced traction. My answer is to outlaw slick tyre technology & replace with road registerable tyres. The widths on front – maybe 10 to 12 inches, the back maybe 16 to 18 inches.

Third part: Presently, engine manufacturers can extract about 300 per litre. Reduce the engine capacity to 2 litres = 600 hp, with a weight restriction to about 400 kgs.

The car performance would be astonishing. This formula would be something like a super ‘Formula Ford’. (And how often have we witnessed superb FF races?) The cars would not be as fast through corners but the audience would not notice as the cars would be nose to tail & side by side. Passing would again be possible. And it would sort ‘the men from the boys’, in that, the slower or fearful drivers would be unable to ‘hide’ their lack of speed & skill.

The cars would have a far less amount of lateral forces and therefore a far safer ‘off’ when the inevitable mistake or situation occurs. And as the cars are now vastly safer than past eras, the possibility of investigating the re-opening of some of the tracks used in the halcyon days could be implemented.

In summary; ban wing & slick tyre technology.

If a team can come to grips with the rest of the car and make it fast then good on them but you (FIA) control the rear downforce ratio and can make adjustments over time as needed.

Seems simple to me and perhaps antithetical to the captains of grey matter at the teams but in the end game; as a fan, I think I am entitled to my opinion lest I start watching more ALMS, Indycar and Super league. ;)

Nice article Mr. Roebuck…as always.

great again Nigel, like a drug always want more – interesting that the forums seem dominated by modern racing isn’t it?

The logic runs:

Grand Prix cars have to be the fastest racing cars on earth.

We need overtaking.

We need mistakes and unreliability.

Ergo, we need a bloody great engine, with hard tyres, (so that there is no grip and no “marbles”) and no aero.

We also need circuits that punish any mistakes. Modern circuits that have a painted white line that defines the corner make me… Seeing an F1 driver overcook it and blithely drive through the 4 acre run off area is not what Grand Prix racing should be about. Even if the corner were only defined by floppy whiplash aerials, at least they would take the front wing off.

No-one wants a return to the 50s and 70s, and we won’t be able to bring back the fear factor that Sir Stirling regards as a factor in the excitement of his era. But surely we must make drivers think twice, three times, before finding the limit by merely driving over it.

Robin

Given that the problem of cars ‘painted to the track’ (a quote from Mario Andretti I recall?) originated with ground effect, why not specify that the cars must have a convex curved cross section undertray along the full length of the car, with no projections downwards towards the track surface and no holes in the undertray. Wings should be of a specified cross section, with only one element front and rear. Full width nose wings could be banned too. I don’t think many spectators are interested in the aerodynamics and airflow under and around the car, so while we’re at it, why not ban all winglets, projections and turning vanes. (or are these aerodynamic supports for the rear view mirrors?). The sponsors would have space for their logos and we might have better racing. The costs of aero research and wind tunnel time might reduce too. Wishful thinking perhaps?